9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), in exercise of his revisional powers, under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1. The petitioner had filed the revision application against the order-in-appeal dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) i.e., respondent no.2. 3. To be noted, there are two respondents arrayed in the writ petition. 3.1 Respondent no.1 is the Union of India (UOI), which is sued through its Principal Commissioner & Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. 3.2 Respondent no.2 is the Commissioner of Customs, Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi International Airport. 4. Although the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hundred Four only) seized from possession of the Noticee under Section 111(l) & 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. I do not give option to the noticee for payment of customs duty. I deny the ownership of the Noticee in respect of the seized goods. iii) I order confiscation of the concealing material i.e. black color cello tape having no commercial value under Section 118 and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakh only) on the Noticee under Section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." 9. As is evident on a perusal of the record, the petitioner arrived from Dubai and landed at Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport on 23.11.2014. 9.1 The petitioner, upon land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority declined to accommodate, and proceeded to pass the impugned order. 13.4 The revisional authority, like the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), has not decided the matter on merits. 13.5 The revisional authority was of the view, that since condonation of delay application had not been filed, the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) need not be disturbed. 13.6 According to the revisional authority, the stance taken before him, that the condonation of delay application was not filed due to mistake of the lawyer, had not been substantiated. 13.7 In this regard, the revisional authority also noted, that there was no evidence placed before him, that the petitioner had instructed his lawyer to file an application for condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
